44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 22, 2022 10:00AM
- Mar/22/22 10:22:01 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that a huge part of the extreme gas prices we are seeing is the egregious price gouging by the huge oil companies, yet this motion from the Conservative Party would do nothing to address the windfall profits that the big oil companies are making.
Could the member please inform the House why he has entirely missed dealing with the primary source of this affordability issue?
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 10:35:59 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised by this ability to put on blinders. The price of oil definitely includes taxes, but it is also determined by the oil companies themselves.
The price per barrel of Brent crude doubled from March 2021 to March 2022, rising from $64 to $128. Oil companies also make a profit on refining a barrel of oil. The profit margin went from $1.15 in February 2021 to $4.40 in February 2022.
The profits from Brent and oil refining do not go to the government. They go to the oil companies. They are the ones exerting upward pressure on gas prices. I agree that supply and demand is a factor, but greed also has a role to play here.
When will the government take action against the oil companies, which are lining their pockets to benefit their shareholders rather than workers, the government and the people?
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 10:57:27 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on the issue of what is happening around the world with regard to inflation, and possibly even the impact on oil prices, more specifically, because of what is taking place in Ukraine.
43 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 11:12:05 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, logically speaking, if not for oil, we would be standing naked in the House of Commons.
Oil is used for many things besides gas for our cars. We were lucky we had oil to get the goods we needed to fight the pandemic. That said, my colleague comes from Lac-Saint-Jean, an area far from major centres. I am guessing that the people of Lac-Saint-Jean need gas to get around. Paying 5% less for gas would be a good thing.
What would my colleague propose as an alternative?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 11:12:44 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the one thing that should never be said to someone from Saguenay is that they are from Lac-Saint-Jean. It is a huge no-no. It is just not done.
I hardly think that we would all be going around naked if not for oil. I do not know what nonsense my colleague is talking there. I have often heard the Conservatives say that, if not for oil, we would all go back to living naked in the forest. Oil is not the basis of human evolution. The Greeks did not have oil, but they were not all going around naked, as far as I know. These days, we have electric vehicles.
The alternative I would suggest is that my colleagues consider the idea that oil companies should do their part. Is it not up to the oil companies to reduce their profit margins?
Why did they not think about that rather than reducing the government's fiscal capacity? It is their problem, not mine.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 11:25:35 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is in fact investing in charging stations in Canada. However, in good part, the debate is about the issue of inflation, and one of the things we have to take into consideration is the world dynamic. What is taking place, unfortunately in a very horrific fashion, can be witnessed every day on the news. We are seeing first-hand what is happening in Ukraine, and that has had a severe impact on the price of oil worldwide.
I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts with regard to that aspect. We are seeing oil increase as dramatically as it has been because of what is taking place in Europe.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 11:26:26 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Ukraine certainly is a sensitive issue now.
It is likely that one of the reasons for the Russian government's invasion was not to gain access to oil, but to take control of Ukraine's critical and strategic mineral deposits. The energy transition is going on worldwide. We need critical and strategic minerals to build tomorrow's electric vehicles. As we know, China controls a huge part of the market. Russia wants its share of the pie, but Canada can take action to forestall it.
We are talking about economic sanctions on Russia. The best way to reduce our dependence is to make sure we no longer need oil because the industry has changed. We want all modes of transportation and energy sectors to be electrified.
There are mines in my riding that want to become 100% electric. I think that is part of the solution, because some of these mines can consume up to 100,000 litres of diesel a day. That makes us more and more dependent on Russia and the financial problems that lead to war.
Let us shift the paradigm and make a genuine energy transition. I think that will also be a solution for peace.
202 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 11:28:43 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Green Party for his question and remarks.
Unfortunately, we have given oil companies much more than that. That is part of the problem. What we can do is accelerate the transition. Let us take that money and invest it in every region of Canada to develop innovation. We must look to innovation and rely on the bright people at our colleges and universities to find alternatives. In my opinion, that is part of the solution.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 12:30:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.
Fossil fuels are not “so-called” fossil fuels. They are simply fossil fuels. Although I share my colleague’s analysis of the situation, I unfortunately do not agree with his conclusion and the solution the Conservatives want to apply.
Obviously, they do not want to touch the oil companies’ profits. These profits are sacrosanct, and we cannot touch them.
However, I wonder why the Conservatives refused the NDP’s amendment, which would have provided Canadians with assistance for residential heating, regardless of the source. That would have gone much further than simply dealing with the price of gas, which is a real problem. It could have helped all the families struggling with the increase in the cost of living, including the price of groceries.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 12:44:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. Once again, we see that the Liberal Party can do no wrong. When my colleague is no longer a politician, I recommend that he get a job at an advertising agency, where he will just write ads for the Liberal Party. He would be the best one there.
It might surprise members to hear me say this, but my colleague from Jonquière made some good points. When he spoke earlier, he mentioned Oil Change International. It had released numbers that include not only the subsidies themselves, but also all the support that oil companies in Canada get from the federal government. From 2015 to 2017, that was $111 billion and from 2019 to 2020, it was $78 billion.
The Conservatives' motion today starts with good intentions, namely to reduce the burden for Quebeckers and Canadians and make their lives easier. However, could the federal government take a quick look at the tens of billions of dollars it hands out in various supports to the oil industry and create a fund from which it can draw to redistribute some of the money to Quebeckers and Canadians in these times of crisis?
204 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 12:46:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going to ask a question in the same vein as that from the member for Drummond.
The ones really benefiting from the crisis right now are the oil companies, which are lining their pockets. The Conservatives' solution is to cut government revenues, when we need that money to help people.
Why not go get the money where the money is, specifically in the oil companies' profits, to then be able to help ordinary people who are having a hard time right now?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 1:00:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the oil and gas companies in Canada have increased their already excessive profits, even throughout the pandemic, when others are suffering. The NDP has pushed for many years for the creation of an oil and gas ombudsman to work for and protect consumers against that kind of price gouging. Does the hon. member support this kind of initiative?
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 1:28:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, inflation may in part be caused by our reliance on oil. We have to think about reducing that reliance.
That being said, people everywhere, seniors, students and low‑income individuals, are facing situations where oil is not the problem. The problem is rising costs. For instance, the cost of housing is skyrocketing. There is far more demand than supply and that leads to rising prices.
To ease the burden, should we not be investing in social and affordable housing instead?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 1:40:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, does the member share the concern we have as New Democrats that if we put in place the measures in the Conservative motion today, oil companies would simply be able to scoop up the reduction in excess profits, as they have done repeatedly? Does she agree with the idea we put forward that applying this to home heating fuels would reach more vulnerable Canadians and would avoid the problem of gas companies simply increasing prices?
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 2:29:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, oil and gas companies, as well as big box stores, have made record profits while families are struggling to put food on the table and fill up their tanks. We know that these companies have made record profits. We have a chance to do something about that later on today when we can vote to tax their excess profits and reinvest it into people.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 3:13:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Arctic poles are experiencing unprecedented heat waves, causing alarm among climate scientists. This is another dire warning that we are in a climate emergency, yet the Liberals keep fuelling the climate crisis, handing out billions to big oil and gas, the same companies that are making record profits as they gouge Canadians at the pump.
How many more dire warnings does the government need before it stops paying big oil to pollute? When will the Prime Minister stop putting corporate profits before people and the planet?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 3:51:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have to wonder whether my colleague's response to rising gas prices is a bit simplistic.
When we look at the price of a barrel of oil or the price of gas, we see that gas is now at almost $2 a litre. We know that the tax on gas, the GST, is 5%. At $2 a litre, that would represent around 10¢ in savings.
I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that 10¢ will change the reality of the market in any meaningful way. Should we not be looking at a more long-term solution? Instead of living at the mercy of the ups and downs of oil prices, why do we not focus on the electrification of transportation? This would be a real, long-term solution that would make us less dependent on products whose prices can increase drastically based on whatever is going on in Ukraine, Afghanistan, or Iraq, or based on Christmas, holidays or summer vacation. Gas prices are always bouncing up and down and, unfortunately, consumers are the ones who suffer.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 4:05:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, having been a member of OSCE and having spent time in Tbilisi and Berlin talking to people from the European Union about this issue, I know they are not as ideological as the member is indicating. They understand the necessities. They know what is happening with the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines and they recognize the significance of the damage that is being done.
Believe me, when Putin invaded Crimea, it was not for windmills and solar panels. He went there for its oil and gas reserves. That is exactly what is happening there. They know that it has to be replaced, so it is not as ideological as what we see across the aisle.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 4:06:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Sometimes we are on the same wavelength, and sometimes we are not at all. Today is an example of the latter.
Oil companies benefit when the price of crude oil goes up. Oil companies benefit at every stage of the refining process. Oil companies pocket the price increase at the pump. Ultimately, oil companies are the ones who benefit from inflation.
Some oil companies have Russian oligarchs at the helm. I have a hard time understanding why my colleague has not taken that into consideration.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 4:10:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands.
Today, we are here to discuss the opposition motion moved by my hon. colleague from Abbotsford, which addresses the price of oil and gas.
The wording of the motion is non‑binding on the government, but I am glad we are having this conversation about affordability for Canadians and our constituents. The discussion is important at this time.
First, the current price of gas and the problems it is causing across the country are linked to the situation and the war in Ukraine. The price of gas and oil is based on an international market. It is not unique to Canada; it is linked in different ways to producers around the world.
When I have conversations with my constituents in Kings—Hants, I am reminded of that.
Part of the challenge that we are all going to have to face is the fact that although we are not directly involved militarily on the ground in Ukraine, the western world is responding by sanctioning the products that are coming from the Russian Federation as part of our plan to help deter future Russia aggression and obviously to respond to the situation right now. I have said in other speeches that the sanctions alone are not going to change the situation overnight in Ukraine. We are there on other fronts with military hardware and with logistics, both lethal and non-lethal, along with our NATO allies, to try to provide support to those who are courageously fighting for democracy, not only in Ukraine but around the world. I think Canadians need to understand that on a temporary basis, in the interim, we are going to be facing higher gas prices as part of the collective cost to fight the war in Ukraine, indirectly at this point, and I think we are all concerned about what this could represent in the days ahead with the changing sands in our foreign policy context.
I also want to take a moment to explain carbon pricing, because my Conservative colleagues in particular are highlighting their idea that the carbon price is unilaterally driving up gas prices and that it is the government's fault that things at the pump can sometimes be challenging. I want to debunk that, at least as it relates to my province of Nova Scotia, and then also speak about what this represents in backstop provinces that do not have an equivalent environmental plan to tackle emissions.
In Nova Scotia, particularly because of the work under the McNeil Liberal government, there has been tremendous effort undertaken to make our electricity grid and our power generation renewable. That has resulted in a higher cost to individuals, but there is no direct price on pollution levied at the pumps on gasoline.
I have had calls over the last couple of weeks about the price of gas and what the Government of Canada can do vis-à-vis the price on pollution. As it relates to Nova Scotia, a lot of that has already been implemented through our electricity rates. Monies that the government is collecting under its cap and trade system at the provincial level are being distributed toward important initiatives to help transition households, particularly vulnerable households, to a lower-carbon future.
Of course, in backstop provinces such as Ontario, essentially the way I like to describe it is that monies collected by the government on the carbon price are centralized and then distributed back to individuals on a per capita basis, which actually creates an incentive for individuals to change their behaviour. As a rural member in this House, I take notice that sometimes there are challenges if people do not have other options, and I think that this is a legitimate policy conversation that can be had, especially as the price on pollution advances in the days ahead.
I want to take a moment to discuss some of the initiatives our government has taken since 2015.
First, we introduced a $10‑a‑day child care spaces program, like the model in Quebec, to reduce the cost to families. I think this is very important because it helps parents get back to work and reduces costs for middle‑class and low‑income families. It is a great step by this government to advance the interests of families who need help.
I also want to talk about the Canada housing benefit. This is a program that is a portable benefit that has been delivered to individuals who are in need. We talk about affordable housing. That means different things to different people, but at the end of the day we are trying to put a program in place that allows an individual to move to different locations as their circumstances warrant, with support from the Government of Canada on the basis of their income. The traditional program has been that someone will be set up in a particular location and given their affordable rent. This program has a lot more merit and we need to continue to remind Canadians of the benefits it represents.
The Canada child benefit, again, has brought countless hundreds of thousands of Canadian children out of poverty and supported families. I do not need to go into great detail because one could look at Hansard and the testimony of members of Parliament about what this has meant for their loved ones and their families. It is truly making a difference and supports affordability, which is really what the text of this motion is about.
I am the member for Kings—Hants, in Nova Scotia. My riding is mostly rural and is made up of small communities of people who are, on average, older.
The guaranteed income supplement is very important for seniors and vulnerable people, which is why our government introduced measures to strengthen this program in the last Parliament.
Right now, we have commitments of course to extending that by $500 a month and we have strengthened old age security, which are other important measures relating to affordability.
I want to talk about the importance of intercity busing. I mentioned I am an MP in a rural area. The way the Government of Canada's programs are designed is that we have a lot of support that is accessible to the provinces to work with municipalities on transit in larger cities. However, if someone is vulnerable right now, does not have access to a vehicle and does not have the ability to afford the cost of a vehicle to get them from place to place, intercity busing is key.
The government has had other initiatives in the past. One point that is extremely important is looking at the investing in Canada infrastructure program and the bilaterals we have with the provinces and territories, and finding ways for flexibility to support intercity busing, particularly given the fact we have gone through COVID and there have been challenges.
The last thing I will say is that the text of this motion talks about eight cents on average that a temporary tax relief would give to the consumer. What I do not think has been discussed is whether we, as members of Parliament, should be also privy to that type of benefit. This comes down to an ideological choice of saying we can either just let an eight-cent reduction in gas prices on a temporary basis be available to everyone, including millionaires and people who really do not need that help, or we can continue to collect revenue as the government normally would and create a specific program that would be targeted to individuals who actually have challenges right now related to affordability.
I dare say there is not one member of Parliament in the House, on a salary of $180,000 a year, who needs eight cents back per litre at the pump. It is lower income Canadians who do. That is a fundamental flaw with the text of this motion. I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.
1364 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
